About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
. ♪ host: good morning, welcome to "washington journal." the fbi investigation that led to the resignation of general david petraeus has expanded to general john allen. the impact of all this on the intelligence community and national security will be part of several hearings on capitol hill later this week. lawmakers return to washington today amid a shake-up of the president obama national security team, facing the looming issue of the so-called fiscal cliff. that is where we want to begin today this morning. president obama will meet later on with labor leaders who are insisting that the president not compromise on cuts to medicare and social security. what is your take on this? avoiding this -- avoiding the fiscal cliff? host: remember, you can send us a clear message, post your comments on facebook, or send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. courtesy of the newseum, washington, front page of that newspaper and many of the newspapers this morning, including "the washington post," liberal groups prepare for an entitlement fight. this is what zachary goldfarb rights. -- writes. host: ther
to the recent revelations, i would refer you to the pentagon and the i.g. on the one hand and to the f.b.i. with regards to general petraeus. >> he's not -- big picture watching, he's not shaking his head saying, guys, we need a more credible, competent sense of leadership? >> he's not going to make grand pronouncements or decisions about things based on two situations, two individual cases. he's focused on the missions that the military is tasked with carrying out and the c.i.a. and the general intelligence community is tasked with carrying out and with enacting his overall agenda. which encompasses not just national security policy but obviously domestic policy. yes. >> jay, has the president spoken to general allen directly? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> secretary panetta? >> i'd have to check that. secretary panetta has been traveling. >> as sort after follow-up, does the president see this in general as an unwelcomed distraction at a time when he's just -- was re-elected and has a bunch of priorities in terms of the fiscal cliff and his cabinet? >> i certainly i think wouldn't call
of interests when the f.b.i. is investigating information that involves the director of the c.i.a., when you have an attorney general that has information that needs to go immediately to the commander-in-chief, to the president of the country, we need to find out, did it go there, and if not, why not. and if so, and what is the president doing with this information because now he's saying he didn't get it until after the election. why so long? what are the problems here? why are the stories different? why are the stores told different from the evidence those people had in hair thands when -- hands when they told those stories the answers need to be found and there's clearly a conflict of interest. we do not need to return to the days of an f.b.i. director who investigates not to report to the commander in chief but to gather information so that he can get it and use it or provide toyota someone else who can use it to force people do what they want. so what happens when f.b.i. director who comes into office honorably with the best of intentions as it appears j. edgar hoover did, to battle org
serious situation. there's a lot of concern about the fact that the f.b.i. didn't come back for three weeks. the reason is when they had to go back they needed protection. they needed to make sure that their lives were not at risk again. and we had to rely in the beginning with a very unorganized government and security group who was working with us and that was the libyans themselves. >> can you explain rice's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it s
is when to retired generals say is a war zone. the other extreme is you can look at fbi statistics to show hat if you look at borders,, which says the border is safer than it appears. you'll see that border areas have less mortars -- murders. i do not want to get into definitional debate. we can talk about what spillover is. >> you commented. you work yourself as a sponsor for additional resources. i am grateful for you doing that. you brought us the general report. -t. to say that it is improper to say that there is -- washington is in denial. to attack two of our nation's senior military professionals, like you did in the congressional hearing, and when they were merely giving their reflection of what is going on based on their decades of experience -- you are dead wrong. i want to follow up with that. here is why washington is in the nile -- -- denial -- the president of the united states comes to the state and make jokes about the safety and security of our country and joking about the border be safer than ever. we have the secretary of homeland security saying that we have had 140 dea
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5